Prasad K.V vs State Of Kerala
2021 Latest Caselaw 1271 Ker

               IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                               PRESENT

                  THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN

   WEDNESDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF JANUARY 2021 / 23TH POUSHA, 1942

                      Crl.MC.No.5323 OF 2020(E)

      AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN MC 134/2019 OF SUB DIVISIONAL
                       MAGISTRATE,PALAKKAD


PETITIONER:

               PRASAD K.V.
               AGED 42 YEARS
               S/O VELAYUDHAN, KUNDILPARAMBU HOUSE,
               PERINGOTTUKURUSSI, NADUVATHPARA,
               PALAKKAD, PIN-678574.

               BY ADV. SRI.D.VIMAL DEV

RESPONDENTS:

      1        STATE OF KERALA
               THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
               HIGH COURT OF KERALA,
               PIN-682031.

      2        THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE
               KOTTAYI POLICE STATION, PALAKKAD.




               SR.PP.C.S.HRITHWIK

     THIS CRIMINAL MISC. CASE HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
13.01.2021, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
 Crmc 5323/2020                     2


                                 V.G.ARUN, J.

             ===========================
                     Crl.M.C.No.5323 of 2020
             ===========================
               Dated this the 13th day of January, 2021

                                ORDER

The Crl.M.C is filed challenging Annexure A1 by which Section

107 Cr.P.C proceedings is sought to be initiated against the

petitioner. The challenge is on the ground that the notice does not

satisfy the requirements under Section 107 Cr.P.C. In support of

the challenge, reliance is placed on the decisions in Ahmed

Kabeer V. State of Kerala (2014 KHC 186) and Santhosh M.V

and others V. State of Kerala (2014 KHC 522) etc.

2. Learned Senior Public Prosecutor submits that the

petitioner is involved in eight other crimes and is a potential threat

to the peace in the area. Unfortunately, these facts are not

forthcoming from Annexure A1. As has been laid down by this

court in the decision cited above, the Sub Divisional Magistrate

should state at least the minimum details required while issuing a

notice under Section 107 Cr.P.C. Such details being absent in

Annexure A1, the Crl.M.C is only to be allowed.

In the result, the Crl.M.C is allowed and Annexure A1 is

quashed. It is made clear that it will be open for the Sub

Divisional Magistrate to initiate fresh proceedings, if so required,

strictly complying with the procedure prescribed under Section

107 Cr.P.C.

sd/-

V.G.ARUN JUDGE

lgk

APPENDIX PETITIONER'S/S EXHIBITS:

ANNEXURE-A1 THE COPY OF THE ORDER SINGED AND CERTIFIED BY THE SUB DIVISIONAL MAGISTRATE, PALAKKAD, IN M C NO.134/2019. DATED 14.02.2020.